A strikethrough price generally suggests to consumers that the retailer previously offered the product at that price. A notice stating that the higher price is to apply again after a discount campaign does not automatically dispel this expectation. The Oberlandesgericht Köln (OLG Köln, Higher Regional Court of Cologne) clarified in its judgment of 2 October 2026 (case no. 6 U 24/26) that such pricing may be misleading if a lower price was charged immediately before the campaign.
Discount advertising with a price intended to apply again in the future
Discount campaigns are a common tool in online retail. Strikethrough prices are intended to show consumers how much they save by purchasing compared with a higher reference price. However, the permissibility of such advertising measures under competition law depends substantially on what message the price information conveys from the perspective of the relevant public.
The Oberlandesgericht Köln addressed this issue in its judgment of 2 October 2026 (case no. 6 U 24/26).
The proceedings concerned a retailer’s advertising for a mattress. The goods were advertised on several pages of the online shop, including on the product overview page, a sale page and the product detail page.
Mattress cheaper before advertising campaign
Immediately before the challenged advertising campaign, the mattress had cost EUR 199. During the campaign, the retailer contrasted the highlighted promotional price with a higher, strikethrough price. In addition, it added an asterisk notice to the price information: “Price valid again from 28/01/2026” (translation).
In addition, the retailer stated the lowest price it had charged within the last 30 days before the price reduction.
The design was therefore aimed at making the current promotional price appear particularly favourable compared with a higher price. The higher price was to apply again after the end of the campaign.
LG Köln prohibits challenged advertising
The applicant considered this advertising to be anti-competitive and applied for a preliminary injunction. By judgment of 4 March 2026 (case no. 84 O 3/26), the Landgericht Köln (LG Köln, Regional Court of Cologne) prohibited the retailer from using the challenged advertising.
The retailer appealed against this decision. In particular, it objected to:
-
the specificity of the application for injunctive relief,
-
the finding of a misleading commercial practice, and
-
the affirmation of the urgency required for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.
OLG Köln dismisses appeal
The Oberlandesgericht Köln dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the prohibition of the specific advertising design issued by the Landgericht.
In the view of the Senate, the challenged advertising was misleading within the meaning of § 5 UWG (German Act Against Unfair Competition). In addition, the court found an infringement of the price indication requirements under § 11(1) PAngV (German Price Indication Ordinance) in conjunction with § 1(3) sentence 2 PAngV.
Under the specific circumstances, the retailer was not permitted to use the higher, strikethrough price as a reference price in the chosen form. The decisive factor was that consumers could understand the strikethrough price as the price charged immediately beforehand, although a lower price had in fact applied immediately before the campaign.
Asterisk notice changes nothing
The asterisk notice stating that the higher price was to apply again after the campaign did not change this either. In the court’s view, this notice did not dispel the misconception created by the advertising. On the contrary, it could even reinforce the expectation that it was a former price.
Nor was the additional statement of the lowest price within the last 30 days sufficient to eliminate the misleading impression.
The judgment was issued in preliminary injunction proceedings and became final upon pronouncement pursuant to § 542(2) ZPO (German Code of Civil Procedure).
Advertising was misleading
Consumers’ understanding decisive
At the centre of the decision is the question of how consumers understand a strikethrough price in discount advertising.
In the view of the OLG Köln, the relevant public will understand the specific design to mean that it is a currently particularly favourable offer and that the strikethrough price corresponds to the price previously charged by the retailer.
The Senate thereby follows the case law of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, Federal Court of Justice) on advertising with strikethrough prices, in particular the judgment “Durchgestrichener Preis II” (BGH, judgment of 5 November 2015 – I ZR 182/14).
Consumers expect savings
In commercial dealings, a strikethrough price generally conveys the impression that the trader previously offered the goods at the higher price. Consumers may infer from this that the current price enables a genuine saving compared with the previous price.
This expectation is of considerable importance for the purchasing decision. An apparent price advantage may induce consumers to choose a product or to complete the purchase earlier than originally planned.
In the present case, however, the impression conveyed by the advertising did not correspond to the actual price development. Immediately before the campaign, a lower price had been charged than the one displayed as strikethrough.
The higher price therefore could not readily be understood as the price applicable immediately beforehand.
Notice of the price to apply again in the future does not eliminate the misleading impression
The particular feature of the case was the additional notice “Price valid again from 28/01/2026” (translation).
The retailer could not successfully rely on the fact that the higher price had actually been charged at another point in time and was to apply again after the campaign.
From the Senate’s perspective, the decisive issue was not merely whether the higher price had at some point actually been charged in the past or would be charged in the future. Rather, what mattered was the impression created in consumers by the specific advertising.
In the court’s view, the asterisk notice did not provide sufficiently clear clarification that the strikethrough price did not correspond to the price charged immediately before the campaign.
On the contrary, the wording “valid again” could reinforce the impression that it was a previously applicable price that had now been temporarily reduced.
Statement of the lowest price in the last 30 days is not sufficient
The retailer had indeed additionally stated the lowest price within the last 30 days before the price reduction. Under § 11(1) PAngV, when announcing a price reduction for goods, the trader must generally also state the lowest total price that it applied to consumers within the last 30 days before the price reduction.
However, compliance with this information obligation does not automatically mean that the entire price advertising is permissible under competition law.
The OLG Köln expressly clarified that the additional statement of the 30-day lowest price did not eliminate the misleading impression caused by the differing strikethrough price.
The decision thus fits into the line of case law of the Bundesgerichtshof, according to which the lowest price in the last 30 days may not merely be mentioned additionally, but must be used clearly and unambiguously as the reference value for the advertised price reduction. If, by contrast, the discount is recognisably based on another, higher reference price, the mere mention of the 30-day best price loses its clarifying effect.
Infringement of the prohibition of misleading practices
The OLG Köln therefore found an infringement of the prohibition of misleading practices pursuant to § 5 UWG. It also affirmed an infringement of § 11(1) PAngV.
Review competition law risks in discount campaigns at an early stage
The decision was issued in preliminary injunction proceedings. For companies, this can have significant practical consequences because a specific advertising measure may, under certain circumstances, be prohibited at short notice.
Advertisements, product pages and sale pages should therefore be reviewed before the start of a discount campaign for consistent pricing that is legally comprehensible.
Significance for practice
The decision of the OLG Köln shows that price advertising must not only formally fulfil the statutory information obligations, but must also be understandable and accurate as a whole. Companies should pay particular attention, especially in time-limited discount campaigns, to ensuring that strikethrough prices, promotional prices and explanatory notices do not create contradictory or misleading impressions regarding the actual price development.
Companies, retailers and market participants with questions regarding permissibility under competition law can find further information on legal advice in competition law at MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte.
